Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd vs Cce Indore Mp on 24 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Excise Appeal No. 2493 of 2011-Ex(SM) [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. IND/CEX/000/APP/297 & 298/2011 dt. 20.7.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Indore] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE Indore MP Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Sourab Batra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondents Date of Hearing : 24.02.2014 ORDER NO .FO/ A/50865/2014-SM(Br) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides, I find that the disputed issue in the present appeal relates to availability of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the service of grass shifting / cutting work and water removing outside the factory during the period 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. By holding that such services cannot be held to be cenvatable input service, the appellants have been denied the benefit of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,18,076.00 along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties.
2. On going through the impugned order, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of toilet soap and soap noodles and was availing the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs and input services. According to the appellant, it is necessary to get sweeping, cleaning of floor with water for smooth functioning of the plant. Accordingly they engage manpower for removing water from the drainage system of the plant inside the factory essentially required for continuous process of plant operation. Further, inasmuch as the appellant has a ISO certified company, they are required to follow environment laws which include the maintenance of garden inside the factory and also are required regular maintenance to eliminate pollution and having pollution free surroundings of the plant and machinery as well as work force engaged in the manufacture of goods. As such, they have contended that cleaning, housekeeping, toilet and water are basic requirements to run a factory and not providing such facilities effect pollution. They have placed reliance on the Tribunals decision in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. CCE Mysore [2010 (19) STR 524 (Tri-Bang)]; ISMT Ltd. vs. CCE [2010 (20) STR 68 (Tri-Mum)]; and Semco Electrical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2010 (18) STR 177 ]. The appellants have also challenged the demand on the point of limitation inasmuch as the show casue notice was issued on 4.8.2010 for the period 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.
3. I find that the disputed issues are covered by the abovementioned decisions of the Tribunal, laying down that maintenance of garden is an essential requirement under the Pollution laws. Similarly, as the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soaps and soap noodles, which require use of water and accordingly removal of collected water from the drainage system etc. is a requisite condition for the manufacture of their final product.
4. Apart from holding the demand to be not sustainable on merits, I also find that demand is duly hit by bar of limitation. Admittedly, the appellant was availing the credit by reflecting the same in their statutory records. In fact the demand was raised on audit objection, which found the above fact from the records maintained by the appellant. As such, there can be no question of any suppression on the part of the appellant, in which case, the demand raised beyond the normal period of limitation would be hit by the bar of limitation.
5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2